Re: [Idr] Shepherd Review for draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt

Jeff Tantsura <> Sun, 09 June 2019 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA8412011F; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 00:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o7_TTHJ3R8e5; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 00:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C485912006F; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 00:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x17so6011759wrl.9; Sun, 09 Jun 2019 00:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=7xrWtzmpNaiJQhNeRi/rkKuachxKrQeXaMx01AQP9Ss=; b=Zg7EIlJZ8BvZ5gm9LcLzQN5XM1lDead/VgPvlYxkiFL6lEk53ZM/VttV1Lah3Rd037 dzlm1sEjfUMyI3/wSbZzdpghOZJnwZyw8xmgZP7PpqVXwQOvR6Z7dNTsi2AnPDOi1yWr z+XKhqFE5TesjFNHh3yZH2aUmSraw++td5j+wR5xObpXS1FUz2ZJoZXrnbwKJXMVCuwt 5N2h4UAaaAaADw1K1BXHfnHkDaKOwULdkisGzCwR5CiLh8DNhG7yQ9a0sZ55fZPUprsA pS0G25lCqXeehK2z5kYih4hjkFssZWOUTLBBQLkU7OkPiaHGh+zNB0AHjaNESduK+Xew 0LMA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=7xrWtzmpNaiJQhNeRi/rkKuachxKrQeXaMx01AQP9Ss=; b=NaPJUOYIM/acbFqk+N1vAdlwi9rpc/CWH+Bq34lwI+JGljOpTQ69f6CoiP35CeAGQF PT0JMJFC4Jc4FJwqTjOccDmsKcFN4142tg41lHB9nFSjzClh/dxSsUefZUI5HK7SkgMg ed1bPHS+ZLlXO1Wc9t7IS9pj+rt14jz44t6YH4O/bA8LBpRpIPVS5Nnp16D0W/ryGG7Y qbBIa7JHpVmyYK4I9/9BGK/4Rw81Svdq8h3S2mby1M0cOpj1LdXXi1PIVLqaDsZskqve ps61k9hLe6Ez2PK6eYYiT84Ae6KD74HgmYfT8xlE4N4sxyhfXg4d9emv9uywmuL6j36W 0naA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXbphecwjJlYA6VwP8GE/wh8xpojt5Iw/VTETpWn/vpjU/0IypK /Foz8nWqJoGy8iz5HDhdfQ/89Q/M
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx7qh57zPfo1j2oZEjDRgt9zygcDrP6RALb7MPy4GBcVNYOzsKTbzgCCZAZing69FQunjmJDw==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:b643:: with SMTP id i3mr11664265wre.284.1560065366139; Sun, 09 Jun 2019 00:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id d18sm6933393wrn.26.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Jun 2019 00:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2019 00:29:10 -0700
From: Jeff Tantsura <>
To:, Susan Hares <>
Message-ID: <a4ae53f4-3cf8-407b-8d40-1f0782537272@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <06e501d51da1$aabc8780$00359680$>
References: <06e501d51da1$aabc8780$00359680$>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: a4ae53f4-3cf8-407b-8d40-1f0782537272@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5cfcb554_431bd7b7_58f7"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Shepherd Review for draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2019 07:29:31 -0000


Wrt 2 IPR statements:
this is the same IPR, one published against individual draft, another, after idr has adopted it.

The author will be working to address your comments.

On Jun 7, 2019, 7:27 PM -0700, Susan Hares <>, wrote:
> Jeff, Ketan, Uma, Greg, and Nikos:
> My initial shepherd review of draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt  has three points:
> 2 IPR statements means the draft will have to go through an IPR call for the IPR issues
> Error handling section needs to be added to the draft (requires -06.txt)
> The implementation report needs to be improved (see below)
> After all things are completed, I will start the WG LC.
> Sue Hares
> (Shepherd/WG co-chair)
> 2 IPR Statements
> -----------------------
> The 2 IPR statements for this draft means that after all authors indicate IPR knowledge,
> I will need to do a WG call for considering the draft with 2 IPR statements.
> Otherwise, the IESG may wish to cycle a discussion on the IPR.
> It takes less time to just do it up-front.
> Error handling
> ----------------
> This draft must add an error handling section that indicates what happen if the
> Node MSD TLV and the Link MSD TLV are incorrectly parsed.
> This is a requirement for the shepherd/WG chair to send this to WG LC or the
> QA reviews (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR).
> I also would prefer to see
> as a WG document prior to sending this to the IESG.
> Could you check with the authors to determine its status?
> Otherwise, the error handling section in this draft will need
> to be improved.
> Implementation report improvement
> --------------------------------------
> The implementation reports for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05 needs improving and your draft needs to have additional error handling specified.
> You need to indicate key features:
> MSD and SR routing interaction
> MSD advertisements MAY be useful even if SR itself is not enabled.
> MSD and BGP-LS interaction
> 2a) The BGP-LS speaker may also advertise the
>      MSD information for the local node and its links when not running any
>      link-state IGP protocol e.g. when running BGP as the only routing
>      protocol.
>      2b) This enables sharing of MSD-Types that may
>      be defined in the future by the IGPs in BGP-LS.
> Support for Node TLV parsing
> 3a – feature support ( yes/no)
> 3b-  MUST  (yes/20)
>          MSD-Value : a number in the range of 0-255.  For all MSD-Types,
>          0 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD stack of any
>          depth; any other value represents that of the node.  This value
>          MUST represent the lowest value supported by any link
>          configured for use by the advertising protocol instance.
>         3c) Support for Error handling if Node TLV is incorrectly parsed – This needs to be specified your draft
> Support for Link MSD TLV
> 4a) support for feature
> 4b) support for error handling if Link MSD is incorrectly parsed